Curtis James Simond v. The State of Texas Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed as Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00633-CR CURTIS JAMES SIMOND, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1405231 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. The judgment does contain a clerical error. The record reflects appellant entered a plea of “true” to the enhancement paragraph but the judgment incorrectly states the plea was “N/A.” Accordingly, we reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect appellant pled “true” to the first enhancement paragraph. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court has authority to reform a judgment to “speak the truth”). In an appeal in which counsel has filed an Anders brief, we are not required to abate the appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment may be reformed. See Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, no pet.) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal to correct age of child complainant); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal to delete improper condition of parole); see also Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (affirming court of appeals’ judgment reforming the judgment of conviction in Anders appeal). Having reformed the judgment, as noted above, and having carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
